>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight a conversation about the united states and china. and the phone call between president-elect donald trump and the leader of tie want. we talk to ian bremmer and richard haass. >> the entire world, the beginning question of every meeting hi in china is what is the new administration going to do everyone is trying to read our tea leaves, they are as confused as we american are to what to expect. the secretary thing the chinese said they want a good relationship with the united states. they want they want a stable region and world so they can continue to grow economically. they're not looking for fights. they would like to work things out with this administration obviously on terms that they find acceptable. >> rose: and we talk about the italian referendum and the rise of pop lism in europe with ivo

daalder. >> what matter is people want to say enough is enough. this is not working. we don't like anybody, frankly, who is in power. and they will vote against anybody who is in power. so when the populists get in there in a year or two, they too will have a problem because the problems that are there are big. >> rose: the u.s. and china, italy and populism next. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> rose: we begin this evening with china, donald trump a unprecedented call with the tie want ease president on friday has put u.s. china relations into sharp focus. it was the first time since 1979 that american and taiwant ease leaders have spoken in a broke from practice. it was a routine congrat la tore call but on sunday night he rit sized china economic and military policies in a series of tweets. dm china a front page editorial in the daily warned the united states risked a confrontation with beijing. the obama administration said the national security council officials spoke with their chinese counterparts to reassure them of u.s. commitment to the one china policy. joining me now is ian bremmer, the of the eur asia group, a global political risk consulting firm and ripped haass, the president of the council on foreign relations. his fourth coming book is called guess what. am pleased to have both of them here. so i begin with you, richard.

how serious is this? how did it happen? and what is going to -- how will it play itself out, is where i want to go in this? >> it's pretty serious in the sense that the call as you said broke, i would say unfortunate new ground but it broke ground that hadn't been there for what, since the late '70s. and the mere fact that this exchange took place is inconsistent with the choreography with this elaborate relationship. i 24eu what made it a little bit worse, charlie, was the followup. he lewded to the two tweets and there as an article in "the washington post" which basically said this wasn't improvisational. there was some planning here, shall we say. this was intentional. and tie want was party and clearly the incoming administration was full party to it. so the initial chinese reaction was quite muted. the scwebt kin ease reaction has gotten stronger because again, it wasn't accidental.

how serious, potentially very. i don't mean in the sense of a short-term crisis but essentially so much of what the united states is doing in the world is pred kateed on a nonconfrontational relationship with this country called china, 1.3 billion people. and this, what we call choreography with tai-wan allowed it t is basically a fiction that allows the united states to maintain a good relationship with china and maintain basically relationship, though informal with tai-wan an allows us in principal to establish this enormous economic relationship to deal with regional challenges like northkorea, to deal with global challenges like climate change. and the question is by putting in play the one china policy which has been u.s. bipartisan policy now for four decades raises questions about whether this relationship will continue to at least have large elements of cooperation. there is an entire school of thought among so called realists that the relationship between the great poker with of the day, the united states and the rising power of the day, china, is des

tinned to be confrontational. this is the called-- conflict. ateens and sparta. and the united states and china have defied this and we defied it for decades. and the question now is might this prediction begin to gain some traction. if so, this century becomes a very different century. >> rose: and the chinese have said in recent days taiwan is the moses single position for us. >> the chinese see them as the thread on the sweater. and they want, essentially from their point of view, if taiwan becomes independent, it sets a precedent means other parts of china could spin off thment is simp something they cannot and will not permit particularly against a back drop of lower economic growth. this issue has the potential to capture nationalist fer ver in china for this government which feels pressure, the anticorruption campaign is a reaction to it. this is something they can't show any softness on. their legitimacy depends upon

maintaining a decent economy but just, even more, it's maintaining the integrity of the country called china. >> rose: talk now about, we have this crisis now, mini crisis. how will it play itself out? what will have to happen now? what choices are out there. >> i'm certainly with richard that i think this is serious. and i don't think it's serious because we have to have a crisis just because he picked up the phone. they do recognize that that act by itself as a president-elect as unusual and unconventional as it is in the context of the big relationship and unusual and unconventional president-elect trump, they could live with that. but there is a lot of other messages that are being sented. you mentioned yourself, additional tweets right afterwards saying you know, the chinese are taxing our goods coming in. and we don't tax theirs. and the chinese are the ones expanding their military in the region. the chinese are the ones manipulating their currency. he didn't, you know, he didn't say it was just not a big deal.

he doubled dun on it. >> rose: but he had said all of those things during the campaign. >> that's right. >> rose: every one of them. >> he said a lot of things during the campaign. the question is what will he do as president-elect enhe has a team around him. i think the chinese government, their view of trump when i met with them, which was all of a week ago, was hey, we don't know this guy. but he's a businessman. he's certainly not going to be kritd sizing us on human right-- criticizing us on human rights or domestic internal policies. and if he is a hard negotiator, well, we're hard negotiators too, but we can deal with that. furthermore, there say little bit of not quite triumphantism, but if you saw ji glin ping giving his speech at the apec sum knit lima a couple weeks ago, that was the one speech, obama didn't give a speech. there and he said look, we're the ones that are going to lead and drive globalization if the united states is not. this is very different than the china that richard and have i been talking about for years,

that they're small and they're not ready and don't-- . >> rose: they're not imperialistic, all of that. >> this is the china that sees that there is a lot of room for them to actually. >> do they believe regardless of this incident, that there is a power vacuum in the united states? i mean in the world? >> they do. >> they think that they can fill that vacuum? >> they can't fill all of it it. but they do certainly understand that not with the trump administration driving a spike into the transpacific partnership, they understand that american allies in the region are very disconcerted that that they don't know that they can count on the united states the way they had heretofore and that china can do more. just today xi jinping announced he is going to go to daf os. the president of chienar at davos. that is western glob atization, why would they show up there. trump will be inaugurated while davos is going on. this is an interesting time for the chinese to show that they're

the ones that are writing the checks. they're the ones driving multiplarl architecture. they are the ones that invited the new secretary general to beijing treating him like a head of state and actually saying the u.n. is the most important multilateral organization in the world and we are going to doaferg possible to support it. could you imagine president-elect trump saying that? so from that perspective, china absolutely sees room to run with this administration in particular. and tease are not coincidental things. >> rose: your reaction in terms of this vacuum and this opportunity for the chinese to say we are now prepared, in the beginning we always talked about peace and pros pitter. now we're talking about peace, prosperity and influence. >> there's a lot to this. the transpacific partnership, if that was central to the american rebalance of pivot to asia, the fact it didn't happen means the third leg of this stool just got knocked out and the stools

aren't very stable without it. they read a campaign that talked about america first. so their view is the united states is less inclined, which they already thought after iraq and afghanistan, already the united states is less inclined to play a role. they have seen the comments about distancing ourselves from allies. so they see all of that. and see this as something of an opportunity. china has always been an odd mixture of a developing country and a major power. and i think what we are going to see is a slight shift in the emphasis, a little bit less of a developing country. to some extent they have begun to arrive and a little bit more of a major power. that is not per se bad. the real question is how they exercise that power. do they integrate into an international order that's based on principals we can embrace or do they have a very different idea about how things in asia and the world ought to operate. to the extent the united states is not active, they're more likely to define it in ways we don't like. if tie want becomes a big issue, the danger then is that the ability of the united states to work with china on what might be the most pressing national

security issue facing this administration, namely north korea, chinese ability to work with us really dwind els because with the nationalist reaction, that's likely to come out in china over tie taiwan, that will really limit the ability of their government, of jinping to work publicly with us on a foreign policy matter. >> do you believe president-elect trump-- understood all of this going on in italy. >> this is not somebody who spent his years in this business. >> rose: but he's got people around him. he ran through a presidential campaign. you have to be briefed on these things. >> that is the bigger question, swi to what extent is this something of an ad hocracy. is it improvisational. transitions often are. have i been involved in several transitions. however melsy government is, transitions are messy on steroids, this one is fully consistent with that. one of the things you are careful about is not putting yourself into certain situations

until you are staffed. there is nothing wrong with telephone diplomacy, bush the father, bush 41 used it to great effect, develop investing relationships. >> rose: so does obama. >> right. well, actually less so but here i get the sense that people around the president-elect had an agenda which was to take this situation that had been fin esed between the united states, china and tai-wan among the three of us and to basically make it more explicit. and to the sense cease fin esing it and to make it again something more obvious. and what i don't know is if someone told donald trump hey, before you do this, understand the consequences. this is not the place we want to have a showdown given everything from geography, the fact that taiw, n exports 30 or 40% of its goods to the mainland. >> rose: a lot of u.s. debt. >> you don't want, given the geography, it is very far away. this is not the place you want a showdown. if you want these guys to help us on north korea, you maybe don't want to push them on this. what i don't see is that someone

basically took a step back and presented this phone call strategically. and that is the obligation of staff, that the individual himself is not yet at that point. >> rose: we talk about people who might have influenced him. who might have influenced him to take the call and who might have said no, but didn't. >> that is a level of detail. i don't know who is staffing. >> rose: well, would michael flin be one? >> again, charlie, i can't sit here-- i literally don't know what the process is. again, it's-- campaigns and transitions, you don't have formal bureaucracies yet. and again as you said, quite right, you've got people whose main preoccupation right now is finding staff. at the end of the day, personnel or policy. that is quite properly the emphasis, which is one of the reasons that you want to go slow on some of these phone calls. there's time for that later. the entire world, i mean the beginning question of every meeting hi in china is what is the new administration going to do. every one is trying to read our tea leaves and they are as

confused as we americans are about what to expect. but the second thing the chinese said is they want a good relationship with the united states. they still understand, they want a stable region and world so they can continue to grow economicically. they are not looking for fights. they would like to work things out with this administration, obviously, on terms that they find acceptable. so my hunch is they are genuinely surprised by this-- by this turn of-- this was not something-- indeed, i'm been going to china for over 30 years thsm is the first trip i have ever taken where taiwan did not come up in any of the official meeting its. it use used to be every meeting you would have almost like station identification, 25% of every meeting had to be get read the ritual talking points about taiwan in this case it didn't come up. we talked about north korea, about other issues. the fact that it didn't come up to me was a major implicit statement that we had succeeded in putting this issue in a kind

of box. and everyone was comfortable with the choreography. now it is out of the box. this will become a major distraction. >> rose: the failure of tpp is a major gift to the chinese. >> one of the biggest we could possibly offer them. >> rose: because? >> because american allies in asia, every single one had put significant political capitol into actually getting this deal done with their own governments, their own parliament, their own populations. now prime minister of japan shinzo abbe hopped on a plane and to see trump and didn't bring up tpp, is he very strong at home. is he very popular. he doesn't have to worry about a new election, he is going to pearl harbor. he can call a snap election and do better. but all those other allies are on the back foot now. they feel like they've lost. they've been hit hard. >> rose: the allies in the pacific. >> exactly. this is sing a more, this is the philippines. this is, you know, this is all of the-- this is australia, all of these countries.

have i heard this chapter and verse from foreign ministers and heads of state of every country, even before trump was elected it is like what are you doing, united states. you've got to make good on these commitments or we've got no choice but to go towards china. >> rose: i have several questions having to do-- i would be interested in regardless if this had not happened. is xi jinping consolidating his power. is there increased or less opposition to him? >> i think the answer is clearly yes. >> rose: and is he becoming more nationalistic in that effort. is he giving more power to the military in that effort? >> no, no, in fact, the biggest mistake that ji glin ssh-- xi jinping made in the early days or under his early presidency was in the first year, some expansion of assertiveness very quickly on the military front in the south china sea that lead to a bunch of american allies overreacting and basically being driven into america's arms. and that was frankly before xi

jinping had really started his anticorruption campaign in earnest which began with the people's liberation armiee. and then moved towards the provinces and to state owned enterprises and now is moving up into central ministries. but what we have seen consistently over five years is she is someone who is not just consolidating power but is actually has a long-term strategic plan. and is building out chinese influence, not just as the communist party over its people but also in the entire region economicically and more broadly than that. >> he's got this fall coming up, october probably of 2017, the 19th party congress. what he wants to then do is institutionalize his position. he wants to restock the pollity buro and standing committee with people who are loyalists to him. so to answer your question, yeah, he is becoming maybe slightly more nationalist but at the end of the day his position is not going to rise and fall on chinese foreign policy t will rise and fall on the

chienee-- chinese economy. on making the transition to more domestic deland-- demand lead economy. >> rose: they are finding it more difficult. >> yeah, like most things it is one thing to talk about it is another thing to actually implement it. one of the reasons for the anticorruption campaign is fog to do with corruption t is to put a lid on. to maintain political control during an extraordinarily difficult political and economic transition. and he is, if you will, taking very few chances. and that is what we are seeing in china and that's why, for example, this termology, you saw it used for the first time a few weeks ago about his being the core leader, is meant to send a signal that he represents the essence of chinese history and he is now the political center of this country. and most china expert also sit here and tell you that he now has centralized more power than any chinese leader, arguably sing maosetu ng, to the end of continuing this economic transformation of the country

and he feels that since the lube ri kaition that came from high economic growth rates is no longer there. the only way china can continue to change is if political disent is bottled up. the problem is how can you get the creativity you need for a modern economy and the openness you need at the same time you put a lid on politically. and that is the contradiction that potentially could undermine his efforts. china is unlikely to make this transition smoothly. >> but the important takeaway from that is that this is not a leader who needs to gin up nationalism right now. this is not a leader that needs a fight on taiwan. i think one of the reasons why their initial reaction was a little tent tiff was okay, well, maybe he just kind of really screwed this up, and you know, we're doing well. longer-term things are moving in our favor. >> rose: why did henry kissinger go there? was it simply a regular visit and he went over because we had had an election here, maybe the chinese wanted to get his thoughts on that because he

talked to donald trump. >> yeah, the guy is 93 years old. and he has been involved in every administration. >> we know all that. >> he is still very much in the mix and still very relevant and respected in china. is he still on top of the issues, more politically and strategically than economically. and he also has spoken with trump. but i have to think that the decision by trump to call the taiwanese president or take the call had to make kissinger lose his mind. because he's one of those, his biggest concern all this time has been this is the big danger, this is the big global risk. >> rose: at the last china development forum that was all they talked about. >> the u.s.-china relationship is actually a stunning piece of diplomacy. the idea that we had one rational, sant sovietism. and that ended the relevance of that ended with the end of the cold war. and the fact that now for two and a half decades the united

states and china have continued to evolve a relationship with significant elements of cooperation, despite all these predictions of gloom and doom about the china threat and the rest, is quite a diplomatic accomplishment. it's actually one that has also gone through a republic and democratic administration it served both countries i would argue on balance well. and the damager we see now is the possibility that some of this is in play. for the firs time in a generation or two. and that, i think for people like henry kissinger, brzenzinski, some of the architects of this, anyone who is serious about america and foreign policy and about the way the international system evolves, this has added a question mark at a time quite honestly where there were already enough question marks to keep most of us busy. >> rose: let me ask you about this question mark, the populism in europe, the election in europe, which wasn't exactly about that, but the people who gained some power because they were very supportive of the no vote, the five star movement very much are

anti-globalization, anti-euro and everything else. but in the broader sense, we had a different result in austria. but we've got three or four big elections coming up in 2017. it really is going to be the year of europe in terms of political activity. >> we are already into it beginning with brexit in some ways. then as you say quite rightly, a 60% vote against-- 60-40 vote against if you will against the establishment, a real frustration over italian economic performance. we will have an election in france which i think will probably not-- it won't go to the far right t won't go, germany most of the conventional wisdom is that the chancellor will win but with a much reduced political base. but no, the european project which again is one of these great historical achievements, you think about the aftermath to world war ii, the kohlhepp and steel community, european community, all that. this idea that france, germany and europe would be so knitted together exekically that war would be unthinkable, for the first time again that has come

into play. it is one of these moments whether the issue is china or europe, i feel that we're living in history, in ways that for decades, i don't know about you, but i just never sensed. and that is what-- . >> rose: never sensed. >> i never sensed that we were living in history. i kind of felt there were givens. we get up, there was a cold war, a structuralled international relations a one china policy. >> rose: you sense we are a time on inflection point at the global structure. >> there are fewer givens, there are fewer assumptions that hold. there are more things that are up for grabs. populations are more likely to simply say we're going to take a different course without necessarily understanding quite what they are tossing out. so i feel it in europe. i also feel it in the united states. >> in europe trump is truly and deeply problematic it is an identity crisis issue. because you know trump support in europe and the people trump will support are theetion populists, it is fileel forage

who campaigned for him it is willedders on the freedom party from the netherlands. it is marine lapen, those are the deepest enemies of these establishments. >> rose: they are the people donald trump relates to. >> is supporting. and assuming that-- . >> rose: with. >> it has gone both ways. we've seen that. we have seen it in tweets in her campaign stops. and if there is indeed not just an end of the confrontation between the u.s. and russia, but if that becomes warmer, that is a significant-- and trump has given every reason to believe he has intention to at least try that out, that becomes a serious problem for nato, a problem for poland, for the baltic states. so the transatlantic relationship which is really the underpinning of this, of history not happening in front of us every day, that relationship is now at its weakest, without any question since world war ii. >> and russia stands ready to try to benefit as much as it can as well?

>> i can't see why they wouldn't. putin has no internal challenges to worry about, so he doesn't necessarily need an american enemy, he can just show he is winning on things like syria and ukraine and with trump as opposed to obama. >> russia and putin n some ways are more worrisome than china. china is a real economy, fully integrated into the region and the world. even know jinping has consolidated enormous power, there still are some checks and balances. russia by contrast is not a real economy, it is an oil & gas economy, it it is not particularly integratedded into the region or the world. and putin has drained institutions in russia of their power. he has deinstitutionalized the country. crush ef at the time of the muscle i failed more constraints than putin now. so russia to me is a sing you lar challenge that is facing europe at a time when europe is less united than it has been really since. >> no one in russia to restrain putin. >> if vladimir putin tomorrow wants to do something reckless

in the baltic there is no one who will say you can't do that. and that ought to give us pause. >> rose: when you look at the obama administration, the way they handled russia, have they not understood, have they not wanted to engage or was it simply putin being the way he was, left them no room to make a deal. >> to be fair you would say it is probably two things. one is as far as the obama administration they arguably maybe could have done more in ukraine to help militarily. i think you also have to walk the clock back really for 25 years, to the end of the cold war and basically look at several administrations beginning with 41 but through clinton, through ws and so farther. and basically say did the united states handle a defeated or however you want to describe russia after the cold war. did we handle it the way we should have. this gets in debates about nato enlargement, about american aid for russia and so forth, about whether we showed them. >> whether we handled them right. i think historians are going to find that a rich.

>> it began with the administration you served withness began there but actually nato enlargement really took flight under the clinton administration, that's when that happened. the question is. >> the wall came down during-- with. >> 41. >> of all days, 11-9. so it came down then. and you then had the union if i kaition of germany within nato which was quite an extraordinary feat and people were sensitive to gorbachev but in the aftermath of gorbachev and beyond, i think historians will debate whether the united states mishandled things or whether there is something simply about russian political culture which putin person fies which made any american attempt to integrate and deal with russia essentially a failure, that there was something about russia that was going to resist a kind of peaceful democratic, economic transformation. and i think that will be the subject of american ph.d thes ease for years to come.

>> you don't want your major global leaders feeling insecure in their international position. and xi jinping does not, vladimir putin certainly does. >> rose: he must think he's winning. >> he does now. but pie god, he felt like he was on the back foot, the russians were humiliated everywhere, principle plee but not solely by the americans. they are still not be treated with respect by obama and his cabinet. you hear it every time you go over there. and by god, they're going to do something about tment and they did in ukraine and they did in syria, and they have with sort of their muscle flexing and military-- . >> rose: if you want to do something in syria now, you have to come through us. >> right. and trump i think is going to largely accept that logic, at least from everything he said so far. but the thing i worry about most, you know, you asked richard before about what the chinese brought up with him. they didn't bring up tie want. -- taiwan. they brought up russia. they are worried about russia. they didn't vote with russia at the last u.n. security. they had the last three times. they don't like the fact that russia is becoming a little more unmoored, more revisionist.

the chinese are investing all over the world. they are investing heavily in not just countries like in latin america, they are investing heavily in all those countries around russia. and those countries increasingly are going to see that china is the only way to go because russia is not a real economy, you can only go so far with just having a military and energy, the price of which are down as a lot of energy in the world. and over time, you know, it's not just the americans mishandling russia. if the chinese mishandle russia or handle them as well as they can but the power balance is really against moscow, then putin becomes potentially dangerous leader. i do worry more about where the russians go over the medium long term than i do about you know sort of the wheels falling off in china. >> this is where you are supposed to make a plug for a world in disarray, charlie. >> rose: this is a new book by richard haass. soon to be at your local book store. thank you for coming. >> good to see you. >> thank you. >> rose: great to see you. back in a moment, moe about this and we will talk about populism in europe. stay with us.

>> we now turn to italy, prime minister plteo renzi said he would resign after voters rejected his proposal for sweeping constitutional amendments in a referendum on sunday. renzi had argued his plan would stabilize the country and allow italy to enact much needed economic reform. critics worried it would give the office of the prime minister too much power. here is what the prime minister said to me in a 06 mince profile which aired here ten days ago. so if you win, the vote is yes, italian government will be more efficient, it will be less bureaucratic and it will make italy's economy more competitive. >> this is my strategy. >> rose: that's your idea. >> this is my strategy because in this time if the country is last beur october-- less bureaucracy, we can compete with other countries in europe, around the world work more

efficiency. why, the italian genius have to decide to leavitt lee because there is a system in which bureaucracy decide for everything. >> rose: you were saying there is a brain drain in italy. the smartest people are going to london, new york, beijing. >> absolutely. >> rose: if you went, that is what will happen-- win, that is what will happen, what if you lose, what happens? >> i think if we will lose referendum, will be a very negative message for political-- . >> rose: change, for change. >> and for change. because it is not the problem in case of law. the system remain exactly that. the system remain exactly that,

with 950 people in parliament, with a lot of-- everything remain the same. >> rose: i know you have heard this before. >> but i think the discussion about change is very popular in italy. because okay, a lot of people think it's a risk to-- yes, it's a risk. >> rose: in fact they say right now if the vote was today, you would lose. >> and but i'm very optimistic because all the polls in the last six months made a lot of mistakes in the united states, in the united kingdom, in colombia. so i also hope that is good for my challengement i don't know, obviously. >> rose: but if it was today you would lose, but you hope that you can do what between now and december 4th.

>> my strategy is explain, if the people will change, have to vote yes. >> rose: here is what they say. you have made this about you. about the prime minister. and it's become a vote about you and thases' not good. >> yes. this is, was my mistake in the first days of electoral campaign. and first of all, myself, i understand a mistake. i don't accept that people who say oh, politicians, politicians have to-- have to refuse the mistakes, refuse to admit mistakes. no, i am a man. i can make some mistakes. and but now the discussion, to be very clear,-- . >> rose: 63 governments in 70 years.

>> exactly. because we have a system-- bureaucracy, everything is difficult, everything is complicated. and my idea is simply give simplicity to italy. so in two years and a half we achieve some results. jobs up for the change, civil rights with the law for marriage, and new initiatives against the red tape of public administration. a new strategy for foreign investment. now italy is one of the countries with the-- this is very important, we are open. >> rose: this is what you think will be the results of a yes vote. >> if there-- -- . >> rose: more very muchment, more competition, less bureaucracy. >> yes. fanned i can use-- if yes, italy

starts the future. because in the last 20 years, italy discuss only about the past. the past is wonderful in italy 6789 look, look. the most beautiful place around the world in my opinion. sorry for the other people around the world. i think this is an incredible place. but the past is not sufficient, it's not enough. we need the future because we are italians. and italy is not all museums. >> rose: italy is not only museum. but some people think italy is a museum and you say we'll change that. some also say that you are the last best chance to change italy you are the last best chance to insure that italy is a very competitive nation in a very competitive world and no longer a museum last best chance.

>> i think italy is rich of great hope around the country. i'm not the last best chance. there are a lot of best chance. a lot of chance to change italy. i think there is a new generation in italy. we fought against all the generations who really could change this country. >> here is what some of my journal stngs friends have said to me. he ask a man in a hurry. >> uh-huh. >> rose: talks too much. has tried to do a lot in two and a half years but they remind me that your priest said to you god exists matteo but you are not god. >> it's true. he told me. it's very funny.

but yes, i-- i am a man in arena,. >> rose: president roosevelt said the man in the are arena deserves the credit. >> the man in the arena tries to change things after a lot of period where the politicians in italy very, very able but very very-- unable to change the country because in the past in italy we changed a lot of government. but we don't change the country. i'm not interested to change the government. i wish to change the conditions for the people. so yes, i spoke a lot. i try to compete also with older colleagues and with older people, in some cases also with other countries. but i think this is the only way for italy in this moment. >> rose: the referendum was widely regardedded as another

test of the european union. the no vote is seen as further repudiation of establishment politics propelling the rise of populism, in awses treea the green party prevailed over the freedom party o poant. joining me is ivo daalder of the president of the global council on foreign affairs previously a u.s. ambassador to nato. i'm please toed have him back on this program. where have you been? >> will with, i've been in chicago, watching how good integration can create a great city. but watching what is going on in europe with great unease. >> rose: why unease? >> well, i think starting with brexit. and then accelerating over time, we're seeing a wave of populism and nationalism engulfing the continent. and the vote in italy although there were specific issues at stake and not everyone who voted for-- against the referendum can be seen as a populist, it was

still feeding this wave of unease with the establishment, with the european union, with the elite, a great deal of anxiety that has turned into anger. leaving people to use referenda and elections to make a stand and say we want change. we want to do it differently and we don't like the way we've been doing it. >> rose: the great irony as you know, well, is that here is a prime minister who is trying to change italy and trying to make it more competitive, trying to-- faced accusations that he was trying to get too much power for the prime ministers place but into the executive wing of government. but he was the establishment because he was prime minister but at the same time he was trying to change the establishment. and then people come along and voted to because they didn't want-- they wanted to change it more. >> well, that's right. he was still trying to work within a system that many people believe has failed. he tried to put forward some ideas, important ideas of

performing the senate and other parts of the government in order to make government more responsive, more effective, more able to meet the needs of the people. but i don't think the details were very important. what mat ared is that people want to say enough is enough. this is not working. we don't like anybody, frankly whrorks is in power. and they will vote against anybody who is in power. so when the populists get in there in a year or two, they too will have a problem because the problems that are there are big. you have an economy that is not competitive. you have people who have suffered quite a lot. the youth vote between 18 and 24 overwhelmingly went against renzi, these are people who are underemployed or unemployed who are still living with their parents. and they don't have much of a future. and they're saying we want a change. an they're willing to basically take on faith anybody who offers a solution. and whether that's a nigel

farage in great britain or donald trump in the united states or beppe grillo in italy, they going to go with the guy, an st always guys up to this point, who are offering a quick, easy out. >> rose: why was austria different? >> well n some ways austria wasn't that different. after all 47% of the country voted for an extreme right wing leader to become their president. so it was a close election. and interestingly enough, the person who won did run on a proeu ticket. and possed a stark choice. and i think when you can pose a stark choice will you see a great division. and sometimes you will find that the nonpopulist win as they did in austria. in others will you find that the populist win as they did in great britain. and the next big test will be france where we have two candidates, one of whom is almost certainly going to be

marie lapen the populist running against presumably the conservative candidate there it be 50, 50, who will get above that margin. the thing we are talking about is we are now talking about nearly 50% in countries saying enough is enough. we want something different. we want to find a new way of doing big. and we want to go against not only establishment, but the institutions that have been part of the european order and part of the national order now for 30, 40, 50 years. >> rose: is it also part of your concern that some of these author tairian leaders, some of these leaders who have been on the scene for awhile and have never been able to command a majority have values that are not in the great tradition of the western values of europe and the united states? >> well, there is a certain tendency to use anus versus them mentality, to repeal to the majority in most cases, to blame

immigrants, to appeal to more basic xenophobic or even racist instincts in order to differentiate between us ver suses them and this social compact, the integration that used to be part of the way we thought in person societies we ought to govern ourselves is breaking down. and you get a much more divisive politics that you seen in france when it gets to the issue of the muslims. you see it in the nether lands where more octoberans in particular are being targeted as a potential minority that is the reason for the problem that we're having. in italy it is the large influx from folks across the mediterranean, coming from sub saharan africa. so people who look different or practice a different religion are used as an a scapegoat, as reasons for the problem that we're fining. >> rose: is it possible that these western countries, if

these populist movements are successful will pull away from the united states. now trump might argue no. >> i'm more worried about people turning inward and that we enter a sort of a nationalist movement in most of these european countries. you are already seeing this in poland, and 234 hungary, where there is an increasing willingness to take standses that are very much against the kind of mainstream western values that we have seen. anti-european union. in some ways proputin but only in order to feed the opposition to the european union. so i am worried about a europe that is increasingly composed of individual nation states, no longer willing to cooperate, to ultimately put one nation against another and go back to the kind of politics and conflict that we had before what were one and two where war, the actual use of military force is

once again seen as a way to resolve disputes. that's what the european union and european project was about to eliminate. to have france and germany, two enemies who had fought three wars in 70 years come together and work together for the mutd all prosperity of frenchman and germans. and that structure is starting to break down. it started as i said with brexit, where the u.k. said that's good for you guys but it isn't good for us. and you see these growing populist movements that say no, the european union is the problem. we need to have more power here internally to address the problems that we face. and growing and you use nationalism as a means to get to that end. so we go back to the age. nation state, in which in europe you had sort of surpassed that with this superflat institution called the european union.

and that union falls away and states start looking at their interests from a purely national point of view, including the point of view that we don't like you and we need to resome of our differences, no longer through negotiation and diplomacy but possibly through the use of force. i think that's a future that a year ago would have been very difficult to even see is possible. i fear that we are at a state where this is no longer impossible. >> rose: is it a threat to the euro zone and even eventually a threat to the european union? >> yes, i think so. i think there is the possibility that, for example, if marie la pen wins in france, not saying that she will, but she is going to get a lot of votes in france. and if she were 20 win, there is a very serious possibility that she would have a referendum on ending french participation in the euro zone.

and that will be end the of the eureau zone, and we could see this happening in italy after the referendum fsm the five star movement takes charge they are going to have a referendum on exiting the eurozone. and if one goes, they all go. it's one of the reasons greece was not allowed to get out of the eurozone. and without the eurozone, once integration reverses, the spiral of disintegration might in fact go quite quickly. so yes, i think the end of the eu is something again, a year ago no one would have thought possible. but today is at least something that one has to worry about. >> rose: and that is in fact one of the consequences of the italian election. people are saying and how massive it was, 60-40, no versus yes was 60-40. >> that's right, three fifths to two fifths t is a big number. and no, as i said at the outset, some people voted against the referendum because they didn't like the particular solution.

after all, the last prime minister mario muntde came out against the referendum saying this was not the right way to change the constitution. and i think renzi made an error in putting the referendum and his own future at stake. and saying if you vote this down, are you voting against me, very much in the same way that david cameron did. and there is this real question now, are referenda really the best way in resolving these big questions? or should one use regular elections. i this think in britain it was shown if you have a referendum you just don't know what the outcome is. particularly if the vote is for status quo which you don't like or something better which we don't have to define. which is what the brexit vote was about. in this case, it was status quo against something that the status quo was painted as the referendum. for some-- for an interesting reason.

renzi was making the argument that in order for us to continue to make progress you need to change the system and people said no, we want to change the whole thing. and voted against it. so having a referendum to solve these very complicated decisions may not be the best way in which-- . >> rose: the interesting thing is that you had people who might-- who might want some change in terms of the efficiency of government but they did not want some change in their own lifestyle. so the idea of change had a certain appeal to them in terms of an idea, but in the end, they didn't want it on the other hand the five star move nment those people, they didn't like it because it didn't go far enough, in terms of turning the system upside down. >> exactly. i think you have exactly right. and that's the problem with having a yes or no vote. where complicated issues, very different argumentations have to

be reduced to a bianary choice. and one of the reasons we have a representative democracy where we elect congressman or senators or representatives is because we don't want to make those choices. and have them done by the people for the people. we want to elect a government that makes those choices. and if we don't like what the government does, then we throw them out and will have another election four years later. and this is the danger of moving towards these direct forms of democracy. on some issues that are very clear, where there is a clear yes and no, it may make sense. but on big issues like the constitutional structure of a country, to decide that on a yes, no basis, when there are so many other issues that come into play as i think the five star move nment italy demonstrated, they may not be the smartest way of solving our challenges. and to address them in a direct way, much better to vote for a

particular political party that is more like the one that has the values that you, that the voter has rather than another set of political parties. and i think that's why we have had a representative of democracy. it's worked pretty well for a pretty long time in europe and these referendums are creating a division in the country that leave no one better off. and become rallying cries for a variety, whole variety of anxieties and anger that exist in our society that isn't very helpful. >> what does this do to the idea of migration and diversity? >> well, it makes pie graition and vy versity more difficult. integration is a more difficult thing to do when you have a deeply divided society. we see that here at home. and you have seen it in europe. after the brexit vote the government made very clear that

an end to open borders was the necessary price to pay in order to implement the will of the people. and we are increasingly seeing a reaction to migration, a reaction to refugees, a mobilization of public opinion against a people who are quote unquote different from us. and i think creating the kind of angry politics and divisiveness in our societies that make governing more difficult. >> rose: do you and do most people see what's happened with the populist wave in europe and what happened in the united states with donald trump exactly the same? >> between europe and the united states, yes, i think, i was in brussels shortly after the election of donald trump. and it was a great wave of anxiety, i a belief that brexit was not a one off. that now two major countries have been overcome in some ways

by a populist wave and that this was going to take hold. the fear was it would happen inity allly and it did. the next big step is the dutch elections in march and the french elections in may and of course the german elections in september and we will see a strengthening of populist politics in all of those countries awe greater interference by putin and the russians in the electoral processes as we saw here in the united states. >> we also saw the german intelligence chief say he was very earn concerned about that. >> exactly. the same kinds of thingsk wiki leak emails coming forward in the german press now so the same kind of things we saw here are happen untiling germany and all over the continent. i was talking to a very senior eu official just a few weeks ago who said this is a new kind of

war that russia is perpetrating on the continent, funding right wing parties, using hacking and other means to get into the political process, and releasing these kinds of emails that might undermine established political parties in order to help foster this populist wave which is dividing europe, weakening europe, undermining nato and as a result, is a benefit to vladimir putin. >> rose: also engaging in fake news. >> a lot of that. you see it with overt propaganda and other kinds of propaganda with the creation of fake news sites, of perpetuating in the russia today and other russian sponsored networks. it's all part of this larger picture that is emerging of disquiet, that is feeding people's anxieties. when people worry, when they are worried about their future, when they are concerned about what the direction of the country is,

they're more susceptible to dem goingic politics of the kinds that we are seeing. >> rose: ivo daalder is the president of the chicago council on global affairs. thank you. >> thank you. >> rose: thank you for joining us, see you next time. for more hon this program and earlier ep sides visit us online at pbs.org and carlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funds for charlies ie rose is provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you'

the following kqed production was produced in high definition. and their buns are something i have yet to find anywhere else. >> i'm not inviting you to my house for dinner. >> breaded and fried and gooey and lovely. >> in the words of arnold schwarzenegger, i'll be back. >> they knew i had to ward off some